UKC

Print edition of the Independent to close in March to concentrate on web presence. The i being sold to the Johnson Press (Scotsman).

A real shame. I've got to admit, if I wanted to read a left leaning newspaper, I preferred the Guardian, but I think it has contributed quite a lot of positive stuff over the last 25 years.

In reply to The New NickB:

It says something about today's political climate when the Indy is described as being left-leaning.

In reply to The New NickB:

I've never liked the guardian

A real loss

(Though maybe if id actually bought it more often then it might not be closing )

In reply to john arran:


For a national newspaper it is!

In reply to The New NickB:

A shame to lose a media voice but really, it's been a lame duck for some years. It lost its way about twelve years ago and didn't really know what it stood for; the Sunday edition similarly.

When it started, for all that it existed in a financially precarious situation it was a good newspaper; good content, well written, good editorials and a great balance between reporting, analysis, opinion and comment. And it, and its Sunday conterpart, came up with some great innovations that have been widely adopted such as the use of a strong picture on the front page where others had mostly words.

But in a way it's good to see it put out of its misery and joining the likes of Today and The Sunday Correspondent in the afterlife. Quite what will become of it as a web presence is interesting; the current website isn't great and it will be competing against not just the web editions of the remaining print newspapers but also the likes of The Huffington Post. I'm not sure there's a place for a web Indy but will watch with interest.

T.

In reply to The New NickB:


Sadly, if the Scotsman is anything to go by, the i will become useless. And the Independent website isn't very good - far too much bought American content.
Real shame, but not entirely surprising.

In reply to The New NickB:


Well everything is relative I suppose. I haven't read it much for years but when it started its very raison d'être was that it didn't lean in either direction. Has the paper changed or is it people's idea of where the 'centre' is?

In reply to The New NickB:

It won't be long before no 'broadsheet' papers (yes - I realise The Independent no longer takes that physical form) are available in print. Great shame. But they all run at a loss I believe.

In reply to The New NickB:

I won't mourn it. It's been Lebvedev's plaything and a sub-Huffington Post purveyor of clickbait for years now. A real shame as its editorials used to be fantastic, even when I was getting my news from digital sources.

In reply to tony:


An understatement, the website must be the worst of any newspaper that I've used over the past few years. If its to have any chance as on line only it'll need to seriously improve the website

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

its gone very clickbaity of late. stories that would be out of place in a celebrity rag like the sun.

In reply to The New NickB:

(posting here as I posted elsewhere)

To be fair, the vast majority of the Indescribablyboring (thanks to Private Eye)'s readership, the "i" aside which split the market, is of left-of-centre but well off younger readers who are disproportionately likely to wish to read news online.

I can see the Grauniad following fairly quickly, to be honest. I would expect the Times, the Torygraph and the various tabloids to last much longer.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:
The HuffPost doesn't occupy an even vaguely similar market position to the Independent. It's basically an Americanised online version of the Daily Mail or Daily Express. Or, if you like, Fox News Online.

A filthy, sensationalist, right-wing electronic rag if I ever saw one.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Huffington Post doesn't come across as particularly right wing to me. Certainly less so than titles you mention. The American right utterly despise it.

In reply to The New NickB:

That might be because the American right is far to the right of the UK right

Whatever it is, it's a filthy, sensationalist, Americanised rag that prints, by and large, total garbage.

(Did you get the impression I don't like it? )

In reply to The New NickB:
Not to forget that when it started it was the only national newspaper that was was openly republican , possibly accepting the morning star . I bought it regularly for years and sill do buy the Saturday edition . Not so much nowadays but I always used to get some pleasure from some Royal event or other being completly ignored or getting a very small mention. I'll miss it and buy the guardian with a heavy heart.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I suspect that the competition online will be rather different. We shall see what prevails.

T.

In reply to Neil Williams:


It's fairly liberal by U.S. standards, the European version is more liberal. I'm not a fan of it in journalistic terms, but I don't think they are targeting the same market as the Daily Mail.

In reply to The New NickB:

I used to look at the HuffPo when it first emerged and then got bored with it. I've just looked at it again for the first time in ages, and it's quite offensive to the eyes for someone who's used to minimal capitalisation in headlines. I understand this probably isn't an issue for most folk, but it looks sufficiently horrible to put me off. It also makes it look very American, so it's quite hard to read without the subconscious filter that it's an American take on British news.

In reply to tony:

Yes, I certainly find the fact that they can't be bothered to adapt their presentation to the norms of the European market another reason not to give them any of my time in reading their articles.